EU Army on way? EU cannot rely on NATO and needs new defence policy...

[Skroe]

You have NO UNDERSTANDING of the situation WHAT SO EVER.

These guys aren't scraping Greece's borders. They go in Greece airspace for 10's of Kms sometimes 100's.
They are flying FULLY ARMED F16s over Greek Islands (talking about flying over civilians fully loaded).

They do NOTAMS half the Aegean. I shit you not. They send ships 200km in the Aegean.

Its a completely different situation

You do know that those Russian bombers are carrying nuclear air launched cruise missiles right? By them "scraping the border" as you put it, particularly off the US West coast, they get in range of launching them hundreds of miles inland towards most major US West Coast cities. The only difference is that Turkey is above the city to "bomb" it. It's the exact same thing.

I have a pretty good understanding. Your two countries that share a bloody and complicated history of butchering each other, and of course, the other side is usually at fault. And to you folks, this little league rivalry is somehow important. Because putting aside past differences and working together for a better, common future is too hard.

The Turks won't bomb Greece. The Turks aren't Greece's enemy. Maybe in it's collective head, but that's psychological, not practical.

And fighting over fucking Cyprus? Who gives a shit? It's this stupid little island in the Eastern Mediterranean most notable in the last 20 years for it's shady Banks that Russian oil barons stash their money in. The most important part of Cyprus is that British base that will be there until the end of time.

The US has generally worked hard to smooth relaitons between NATO allies over the years. Being the arbitrator in the room is kind of our second career. But it's put basically no effort into resolving the Cyprus issue, over a period of decades. Because it is really not important.

[Ulmita]

LoL ok Skroe.

I can't believe that you are trying to present as ok foreign airforce flying fully armed over your lands...

[Skroe]

LoL ok Skroe.

I can't believe that you are trying to present as ok foreign airforce flying fully armed over your lands...

I'm saying countries do all sorts of meaningless for-show stuff, usually for the domestic audience.

But then again peoples losing their minds and their dignity (and eventually their homes and lives) over some shit-stained rocks describes fully a quarter of European history.

No wonder the US and UK, the both fundamentally Anglo Saxon in nature, both founded the two greatest superpowers of the last five hundred years. Nobody else had / has their act together.

[bledgor]

if you want to have a a look on military spending and capabilities, this wikipedia article (although german) has nice tables of everything.
EU combined isnt that far behind US , on spending and on actual gear numbers (but i think it still includes GB), and it is by far the worlds 2nd military power. And jesus, imagine if EU feel the need to actually emphasize on Military spendings, to a scale like the US does. Game of Thrones "Build my a thousand ships" could be citated, and easily realised.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa...te-overview-16

Not easily realized at all, you know how long it would take you to build up a fleet equal to the US's fleet? Decades, and that is being generous due to the fact the only one building some of these ships are the US alone (looking at you supercarriers, US is the ONLY nation with them, though Britain is building a smaller super carrier and Russia has one in the works). You are also neglecting the RnD that would be needed to catch up to the US in addition to the straight construction time/cost.

[Skroe]

Not easily realized at all, you know how long it would take you to build up a fleet equal to the US's fleet? Decades, and that is being generous due to the fact the only one building some of these ships are the US alone (looking at you supercarriers, US is the ONLY nation with them, though Britain is building a smaller super carrier and Russia has one in the works). You are also neglecting the RnD that would be needed to catch up to the US in addition to the straight construction time/cost.

Decades is being generous. Let me put this in context.
The way the US Navy works is that for all it's 273 combat ships and submarines, and all the ones being built right now, it knows exactly how many deployments and years of service it will get out of every single one, through the next 30 years. The USS Nimitz for example, will be retiring in 2026. Why? Why not keep it around for for another decade? What makes 2026 so special? Budgetarily speaking, the Navy decided that it doesn't want to continue to spend the $300 million a year for the cost of ownership of the Nimitiz, starting at that point. That goes the same with any ship.

The US currently builds Carriers on a 5 year build plan. Until Obama became President, it was 4 years. It is likely to go back to 4 years due to pacific concerns in the next few years. Currently we have 10 active carriers, 1 undergoing sea trials, 1 under construction, and 1 in materials procurement. The build plan number is inaccurate. Including materials procurement, actual construction, testing, sea trials and so forth, it takes about 12 years for a carrier to go from a pile of metal to deploying overseas.

During the US Presidential Primary, several Republican candidates proposed expanding the US Carrier Fleet to 15 ships. This is a widely supported notion within the defense community and increasingly in congress. But what would that take? According to experts, the US would have to go to a 4 year build plan for carriers, extend the life of the Nimitz by 6 years and most significantly of all, open a second shipyard to start building more than 1.25 carriers at a time. (currently theJohn F Kennedy is under construction and the Enterprise is having parts procured... by the time the Kennedy is undergoing sea trials, Enterprise will enter construction and CVN-81 will be materials procurement).

All said and done, it takes about 15-20 years to grow the carrier fleet from 10+1 to 15. If you do a 5 year build plan and retire the first three Nimitz class ships (the 1970s built ones before Carter paused production), it takes about 30 years.

The key reason the US is able to build carriers is because it's never stopped building them since World War II, and it's been refining a basic design that has carrieed over since the first big supercarriers in the 1960s. There is decades of institutional knowledge at these shipyards and in the pentagon's procurement offices that wouldn't be easily replicatable. There is actually a recent example of how fragile this is. The US paused DDG-58 Arleigh Burke class production (technically, ended procurement) because it planned to buy DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyers. However the Zumwalts got to be too expensive, so five years later, the US decided to restart DDG-58 production. Restarting that, even after a short gap, proved to be incredibly challenging. THe entire industrial base had moved on. Wielders and electricians had been laid off or moved to other projects. It was difficult and expensive, and they finally put humpty dumpty back together, but it fell 6 months behind schedule and cost billions of dollars.

Standing an entire industrial base capable of building supercarriers up is no small undertaking.

[Deleted]

Imperialism is not about money; it's more about about power, control and influence. Money can bring those but is not the main motivator.

Something like this?

You do know that those Russian bombers are carrying nuclear air launched cruise missiles right? By them "scraping the border" as you put it, particularly off the US West coast, they get in range of launching them hundreds of miles inland towards most major US West Coast cities. The only difference is that Turkey is above the city to "bomb" it. It's the exact same thing.

I have a pretty good understanding. Your two countries that share a bloody and complicated history of butchering each other, and of course, the other side is usually at fault. And to you folks, this little league rivalry is somehow important. Because putting aside past differences and working together for a better, common future is too hard.

The Turks won't bomb Greece. The Turks aren't Greece's enemy. Maybe in it's collective head, but that's psychological, not practical.

And fighting over fucking Cyprus? Who gives a shit? It's this stupid little island in the Eastern Mediterranean most notable in the last 20 years for it's shady Banks that Russian oil barons stash their money in. The most important part of Cyprus is that British base that will be there until the end of time.

The US has generally worked hard to smooth relaitons between NATO allies over the years. Being the arbitrator in the room is kind of our second career. But it's put basically no effort into resolving the Cyprus issue, over a period of decades. Because it is really not important.

This is actually hillarious coming from you. Considering how you are constantly trying to portray Russia as some kind of aggressor who is out of line. Isn't the Russia conflict insignificant? Can't you put your differences aside?

[Skroe]

Something like this?







This is actually hillarious coming from you. Considering how you are constantly trying to portray Russia as some kind of aggressor who is out of line. Isn't the Russia conflict insignificant? Can't you put your differences aside?

No. Because our conflict of Russia is about defending the Western World order and the security of Europe, and it's huge nuclear arsenal that it ISN'T cutting. It's about liberty, justice and democracy versus authoritarianism and criminality. It's big picture stuff. It's not about something meaningless.

Also your picture is wrong. Almost none of those bases are US bases. I mean the US has facilities at those country's bases under the invitation (and often at the expense of) those countries. But they don't belong to us.

I mean you have a flag in Kazakhstan. It's little more than a logistics hub and airport for people and materiel headed from Europe to Afghanistan. Russia was fine with it.

Also the US defense budget isn't big enough and is thankfully *finally* headed upward again.

[Kuntantee]

Does that mean EU leaving NATO? Because what's left of European power projection capability in ME will drop to 0. The bases in ME are USA bases disguised as NATO.

[Ulmita]

Those violations are intentional. To remind you that your aggressive claims regarding air space and sea borders are not taken seriously.

Is Rhodes international airspace?

One of your NOTAM included space west of the 25th longitude. Do you know where is the 25th longitude?



This is what you reserved for a military exercise.


This is another of your NOTAM this past May:



I can keep listing Turkish bullcrap NON FUCKING STOP

[Skroe]

I love how actual shit-stained Aegean rocks make Greeks lose their marbles.

I mean look at those islands. There is property in the US that dwarfs them.

And really Ulmita. Turkey is your NATO ally. Who cares if they stray a little.

[zephid]

Most importantly though, a unified army is a good step towards a super state, a federalized EU.

That's not exactly a good thing.

[Deleted]

No. Because our conflict of Russia is about defending the Western World order and the security of Europe, and it's huge nuclear arsenal that it ISN'T cutting. It's about liberty, justice and democracy versus authoritarianism and criminality. It's big picture stuff. It's not about something meaningless.

Also your picture is wrong. Almost none of those bases are US bases. I mean the US has facilities at those country's bases under the invitation (and often at the expense of) those countries. But they don't belong to us.

I mean you have a flag in Kazakhstan. It's little more than a logistics hub and airport for people and materiel headed from Europe to Afghanistan. Russia was fine with it.

Also the US defense budget isn't big enough and is thankfully *finally* headed upward again.

If you are defending the world order and security of Europe why did CIA overthrow the Ukraine government? Why are you constantly stirring things up everywhere if you are concerned with security? And the rest is just hogwash. I think your brain is fried from watching too much Star Wars and reading comic books. America is not the good guy. Yes some Putin opposition vanished and he consolidated power by changing rules. But it's not like the USA is above that. Critics of the regime have been assassinated. Patton for example. People criticizing the Vietnam war, or Michael Hastings in 2013. Heck this is the woman running for your president. And her husband has already been president for 8 years. Democracy and liberty? Your country repealed a law preventing the use of propaganda in 2013. Propaganda is legal in US. What a joke.

[Deleted]

I love how actual shit-stained Aegean rocks make Greeks lose their marbles.

I mean look at those islands. There is property in the US that dwarfs them.

And really Ulmita. Turkey is your NATO ally. Who cares if they stray a little.

They didn't lose them, we are storing them in the British museum.

[Kalis]

I mean look at those islands. There is property in the US that dwarfs them.

Not sure how that is relevant. There are places in the world that dwarf New York, therefore New York is not important?

Everywhere where people live is important to the people living there.

[Kellhound]

I love how actual shit-stained Aegean rocks make Greeks lose their marbles.

I mean look at those islands. There is property in the US that dwarfs them.

And really Ulmita. Turkey is your NATO ally. Who cares if they stray a little.

Its all about Greece trying to block Turkey from most of the Aegean.

[Ulmita]

Not sure how that is relevant. There are places in the world that dwarf New York, therefore New York is not important?

Everywhere where people live is important to the people living there.

He is trying to bait me on a retarded conversation, quite obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Its all about Greece trying to block Turkey from most of the Aegean.

Him too =)

[Deleted]

I personally have been calling for this for a long time now.

good luck. more money being wasted by the eu, glad were out of it.

[Pantelija]

The current EU defense is so fragmented and inefficient that they wouldn't be able to do anything in another Ukraine type of situation.
Russia could steamroll half the continent without breaking a sweat.

Yes EU needs EU army because evil Russia will invade any time now.

[Kuntantee]

@Ulmita

I edited my post just not to deal with you.

[Deleted]

The reason why we need an EU force is because, unlike what skroe is trying to tell us, NATO does not defend "western values" anymore. NATO is trying to justify their existence and causing damages to European security on TWO levels.
First one is obvious. Increased tensions with Russia is good for US, not Europe at all.
Second one is a consequence of this "fabricated tension". We are misusing a lot of resources and missing a lot of focus on serious problems.
Once again:

http://m.euronews.com/en/336835/